Talk:Land tenure

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Law (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon


This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Comment[edit]

I notice there have been some considerable re-writes from my earlier version. I have two comments to make:

  1. the "new" landlord/tenant relationship has no legal or historical relationship with that of tenure, although the terminology has been recycled. I hope I made that clear, the new article is innaccurate in that it implies that tenure can still be created by leasing.
  1. the article systematically ignores -- despite my earlier careful wording -- the fact that most people who had some kind of real property rights (as we would now understand them) were neither in demesne, mesne lords nor tenants in chief.

I want to hack the article around to sort that out. Does anybody object?

Francis Davey 12:26, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Merge?[edit]

I think there's a very good case for merging this article with a rewrite of Land ownership and tenure. Alan 14:09, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

NO. Land ownership and tenure is actually largely about 'estates'. This one is about tenure. It is still incomplete as it fails to deal with the medieval unfree tenures that became copyhold (until that was abolished in 1925). Peterkingiron 23:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I can see considerable merit in a merger here. This article could be renamed to something like Feudal tenure, and then the modern bits merged in. I would also merge with Title (property) to create a general article dealing with modern concepts of land ownership. In fact, I'd be almost tempted to merge all with Property, but that article is already very long. DWaterson 19:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
One needs to be wary of making articles that are too long, but still end up failing to be comprehensive. In dealing with the land law, this is particularly likely because it tends to be different in every country. One way of avaoiding this is to have a compatatively short main article, with cross-references to others using a 'main' template - in curly {{}} brackets. Peterkingiron 16:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Scotland[edit]

I think that this article definitely needs a decent Scottish input, particularly on crofting which is a highly unusual form of land tenure.--MacRusgail 17:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposal[edit]

This article is clearly overlapping with Land ownership and tenure, which has no references and is very small. If the other article is about "estates", then I'd like to see a very compelling reason to keep these seperate. --Explodicle (talk) 15:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I remain opposed to a merger. I think this article should proably be retitled Land tenure in England. The other article is a poor one, but seems to apply (at least) to all common law jurisdictions. However it confuses tenures and estates, which are quite different things in concept; one is how much and the other how long. However, today the disppearance of freeholds and leases for lives, as well as freehold tenures other than socage means that the distinction is less obvious today. If you can improve both by merging them, I would not oppose that, but until Land ownership and tenure is a much better article, its content should not be added to this one. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Retitling sounds fine to me, that would make the subject seperate enough. --Explodicle (talk) 19:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • No one has touched this article since June. Neither this nor Land ownership and tenure are properly sourced, and I'm not going to start a new Land tenure in England article if I can't back it up when it's sent to AfD. I'm inclined to just wipe out the original research in both and rewrite a new article under this title. Any objections? --Explodicle (T/C) 15:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Well there are some halfway decent facts in this article, just unreferenced ones. If I was well, I could dig out references for the bits that I can see are right. It would be a shame just to dump it all. Francis Davey (talk) 19:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Before wiping anything I can post a link to the old version on the talk page, so it would be easy for people to see what needs sourcing. --Explodicle (T/C) 20:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Forking out the English content was a good idea, but has left this article with little real content. I suspect that the best solution now may be to merge it with Land ownership and tenure. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea to me. --Explodicle (T/C) 13:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Socialist countries[edit]

I am no expert, but the English word tenure is also used to define the status of land (and property) in Socialist and former Socialist countries (USSR, Yugoslavia), in which the state had a role very much like the Crown in English law. The issue is still very relevant e.g. in cases over refugee return in the former Yugoslav republics. 87.139.126.43 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 10:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC).